A Mormon Fundamentalist Review: Under the Banner of Heaven Ep. 7

 

I am an excommunication whore...

At least, this is what a friend said about me tongue-in-cheek, given the number of times I have been the recipient of excommunications.

Four times.  I have been excommunicated four times.  Once from the LDS Church at the tender age of 20 for "apostasy" - apostasy being studying the principle of plural marriage and believing that it should be lived.  Once about five years later from the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB), a polygamous offshoot of the LDS Church, cut off for helping compose a list of complaints and mass mailing it to the whole church.  A third time twelve years later in a smaller community for disagreeing with the leader on the topic of race, and the final time just five years ago simply for being a certain race. (Much more on this topic in later posts.)

Whereas excommunications are a hard thing to go through, I am grateful for each experience, because they taught me hard yet valuable lessons that I likely wouldn't experience elsewhere.  The result is that I now consider myself an Independent Mormon Fundamentalist, not belonging to any formally organized church or group.  It's better this way.  Lonelier, yes.  But better.  It is with a measure of pride that I can say that I have always stood up for what I perceive to be correct principle.

So, here's the funny part - despite going through so many excommunications, I have never had an excommunication trial or hearing.  Not once.  In the LDS Church, I received in the mail both the invitation to my trial and the results - both on the same day.  I was tried in absentia.  In the AUB, we were "invited" not to return and then shunned by people we assumed were friends.  No trial.  The third one was the most bizarre.

Every Sunday morning, we used to get up at the crack of dawn and meet for prayers in the upstairs room of our chapel.  There was an altar up there, and we dressed in our temple clothes to pray.  Everyone had a key to the prayer room, so that we could use the room privately whenever we wanted.  The way we found out we were excommunicated - we showed up one morning to find that the locks to the prayer room had been changed.  Our keys didn't work, and we were barred from entering a prayer room we had labored to help build.  We were released from our callings without thanks or even notification.  I had taught Youth Sunday School for ten years; my wives had been involved with Primary for just as long.  Other people were simply called to replace us, and the way we found out was through the rumor mill.  Can you think of anything more Mormon and passive aggressive than just changing locks without talking to anyone? (The fourth time I was excommunicated was from a much smaller group and was sort of mutual.  I just stopped going.)

Something else peculiar happened after the locks were changed.  In a public meeting, the leader of this group was discussing me and the other people who were cut off, and he physically dusted his feet of us.  I was shocked when I heard this.  This man was supposed to be my friend.  This was something that you reserve for your enemies.  The dusting of the feet is a symbol of casting off the wicked and unrepentant and delivering them over to the wrath of God.  Just because I had a differing opinion with "one man", I was not only cast out, but cursed.

The scene in Episode 7, the final episode of the FX/ Hulu series Under the Banner of Heaven, where the General Authority dusts his feet of Jeb Pyre (Andrew Garfield) and the murder investigation of Brenda Wright Lafferty and her infant daughter Erica - that scene was triggering for me.  Without a doubt, there were many things in the episode that I found disturbing and triggering.  But that particular scene struck a personal chord with me.  It brought me to remembrance of all the excommunications I have garnered, and that time when a man I used to love dusted his feet of me...

The custom of shaking the dust from your feet against someone was taken from the New Testament where the apostles were given instructions in regard to how to handle those who denied them hospitality while out in the world preaching the Word.  They were to "depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet" and that it "would be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city" (Matthew 15: 14-15).  As the early Latter-Day Saints began to send out missionaries out, they appropriated the same custom, and it is found several places in Doctrine & Covenants:

"And in whatsoever place ye shall enter, and they receive you not in my name, ye shall leave a cursing instead of a blessing, by casting off the dust of your feet against them as a testimony, and cleansing your feet by the wayside." D&C 24: 15

So, how was that performed by the Saints?  Was it simply stamping your feet as depicted in Episode 7?  It was actually a formal priesthood ordinance.  In 1880, during the tenure of John Taylor, the leadership of the church were wanted men and hiding from the federal authorities, Wilford Woodruff was hiding in a sheep camp in Sunset, Arizona - not far from where I live as I write this.  Even though John Taylor was the president at the time, Woodruff dictated the words of a lengthy revelation addressed to the Quorum of the Twelve.  This revelation is known to fundamentalists as the 1880 Revelation and can be found with other uncanonized revelations in both fundamentalist publications The Four Hidden Revelations and Unpublished Revelations.  In regard to the many enemies of the church, the revelation said:

"Go ye alone by yourselves, whether in heat or in cold and cleanse your feet in water, pure water, it matters not whether it be by the running streams, or in your closets; but leave these testimonies before the Lord and the heavenly hosts; and when.. ye do these things with purity of heart, I the Lord will hear your prayers and am bound by oath and covenant to defend you and fight your battles."

As an interesting, yet not completely irrelevant, aside, the FLDS Church reject completely the 1880 Revelation - not just because Wilford Woodruff was the "traitor" who compromised with the government and issued the Manifesto that ended plural marriage, but because the revelation tells the apostles that they "hold in common the Keys".  That flies in the face of their One Man Rule doctrine that gives Warren Jeffs the excuse to be the only one in control.  More abuse of power, but more on that later...

The 1880 Revelation also instructs the apostles to "gather yourselves together in your Holy places and clothe yourselves in the robes of the Holy Priesthood and there offer up your prayers..."  So, the recipe to get the Lord to fight your battles was to perform the washing of feet ordinance as testimony against your enemies and to place the names of your enemies on your prayer lists before God.  It was said that Joseph Smith's prayer meetings were more like cursing meetings, because he had so many people against him and so many court cases.

So, why am I telling stories of my collection of excommunications?  Why am I recounting that I never had a priesthood tribunal?  Or was listened to?  That I had a curse laid upon me by an alleged friend?  Because all of this is representative of what I perceive as the greatest problem in Mormonism - both mainstream LDS and Mormon fundamentalist - the arbitrary abuse of power.

And imperfect as Under the Banner was on some levels, Dustin Lance Black captured this perfectly.  The General Authority dusting off his feet against Pyre, or the blessing laid upon the head of Brenda by church leaders compelling her to stay in a situation that proved fatal, or the many scenes that depict priesthood holders extracting blind obedience from wives - both the Laffertys and even Pyre.  It doesn't matter that many of these events were fictionalized.  They resonated with many, many people.  Because so many have gone through strikingly similar events.

My wife and me at the premiere

The combination of arbitrary abuse of power in tandem with unquestioning obedience is a dangerous thing.  This unholy union led to the tragedy of Mountain Meadows, and it led to the to the brutal murder of Brenda Wright Lafferty, and her daughter, Erica.  How I wept to see both of these scenes depicted on the small screen!  Because these are the fruits of our folly.  These are the real casualties of our ideological speculation.  This is the product of our vanity - that blood soaks the carpet of a quaint home in American Fork, Utah and drenches the stones of a mountain valley in southern Utah.  All of Mormonism is under condemnation because of this blood, and the only way to move past it is to confront it.  The fact that a TV show has made us so uncomfortable proves that there must be a reckoning.  If we prayed for the blood of Joseph Smith to be avenged to the third and fourth generations, if we believed that this was a thing, how long will we be held accountable for the blood we have spilled?  For the doctrines that led to bloodshed?

I am a Mormon fundamentalist.  Yet I walk comfortably in ex-Mormon circles.  That's in part because ex-Mos and fundies both asked the hard questions; we came up with different answers to the questions.  But I am asked all the time -"Why are you still a believer?  Knowing all that you know, why are you still a believer?"  The answer to that is complicated.  A couple of years ago, I met for a couple of hours with a cultural anthropology professor from California.  She asked me a series of questions about my beliefs afterwards, and she left baffled.  She expected to find a dyed-in-the-wool, Trump-supporting, Bible-thumping fundamentalist.  I think she was almost disappointed that I didn't fit the stereotype.  I am not a literalist, and I question every doctrine, every teaching, any principle, every revelation that crosses my path.  And I'm not afraid to toss out things that don't make sense or serve me any longer.  Some people have a "shelf" - I have a "garbage can".

And that is because - me, along with the people I'm close to - witnessed so much abuse of power along our path of Mormon fundamentalism that we have developed a penchant for questioning everything, much to the annoyance of many of our contemporaries.  Also, we have a deep distrust of leadership, and none of us ever want to put ourselves in any capacity where we are in charge of anyone.  Ever.  And that is because of what the Prophet Joseph wrote in D&C 121:39:

"We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."

This is a universal truth.  All men.  Even myself.  I've seen abuse of power among fundamentalist men. 

"Follow your file leader." "When the brethren speak, the thinking has been done." "Stand at the rack, hay or no hay." "You cannot question us, because you are not our peer."

These are literally things I have heard said.  And here is the freaky part - I have seen that capacity within myself as well.  And it scares the hell out of me.  So, I try to remain humble as best as I can.  Many things in my life have helped keep me that way, including numerous excommunications.  So, I decline leadership. I'm a nobody.

One of the reasons I have held to my Mormon faith are several spiritual experiences.  These make it hard to question my faith. I usually keep them close to my heart and don't share them with others, but permit me to share one that may be relevant.

My deceased father came to me in a dream, dressed in his temple whites.  I recognized in my dream that he was from the other side, so I asked him what he had to say to me.  He embraced me and whispered in my ear three times, "Test all topics the way you are taught in the temple."  Then he vanished.

Beyond the alliteration, I have pondered over the years what that might mean.  I have come to the conclusion - we must test all topics.  Everything should be questioned.  Nothing is unimpeachable.  Doctrines.  Teachings.  Practices.  Everything can and must be tried.  Even our beloved leaders.  Only then can we make sense of these brutal murders and ensure they never happen again.

I've reached the end of my reviews for Under the Banner of Heaven.  I started out this review not knowing what I was going to write about.  I hope it didn't come across too preachy.  I want to thank Dustin Lance Black, Troy Williams, and Lindsay Hansen Park for their vision.

A Mormon Fundamentalist Review: Under the Banner of Heaven Ep. 3

 In March 2015, I went to Haun's Mill in Caldwell County, Missouri...

Haun's Mill is a place of significance in Mormon history.  On October 30, 1838, an armed mob led by the sheriff of nearby Livingston County rode their horses into the peaceful settlement of Mormon farmers and gunned down the men, women, and children.  The Mormons attempted to hide in a barn, but the mob aimed their guns between the slats and fired indiscriminately.  Seventeen died, fifteen were wounded.  The dead were dumped into a deep well and buried.  Their bodies remain there to this day.

This scene was depicted on the recent episode (#3) of the limited FX/ Hulu series, Under the Banner of Heaven.

Haun's Mill, Missouri in 2015

As I rolled onto the Haun's Mill property, I was surprised.  The LDS Church had just purchased the property from the Community of Christ a few years earlier in 2012.  I had made the pilgrimage  to several LDS sites over the years - the St. George Tabernacle, the Lion House, Liberty Jail, Joseph Smith's birthplace in Sharon, Vermont, Nauvoo - and all of the church history sites were set up the same way.  Parking lots.  Visitor's centers.  An elderly couple giving rehearsed tours and answering questions.  Not Haun's Mill.  It was bare and unadorned.  I don't know what it's like now, but in 2015, it was a lonely stretch of dirt road, a set of tire tracks though the grass.  The utter silence and lack of visitors was deafening.  The road leads to an unremarkable copse of trees with a creek running through it.  A solitary marker was the only evidence that you were standing on a site of historical significance.  (The official monument and millstone are miles away in nearby Breckenridge.)  But the haunted, desolate feeling of Haun's Mill was palpable.  A heavy feeling clung to the air like a pall hanging over the place, and I could feel it.  This location of massacre has a hold on the collective Mormon memory, and yet it is a place that seems to want to be forgotten.

The visit to Haun's Mill was part of a personal tour being given to me by local historian and former mayor of nearby Chillicothe, Jeffrey Foli, taking us to various sites in Daviess, Caldwell, and Livingston Counties that pertained to the 1838 Mormon War, a series of conflicts between Mormon settlers and local Missourians that led to a state-sanctioned Extermination Order and the forced expulsion of the Latter-Day Saints out of Missouri.  As we stood on the grassy clearing of Haun's Mill, Jeff reverently recounted to our small group the details of the gruesome massacre, including how a young Missouri man named Ira Glaze, who may have had mental issues, pressed the barrel of his shotgun against the forehead of a 10-year-old Mormon boy named Sardius Smith and pulled the trigger.  A Missouri onlooker coldly remarked, "Nits breed lice."  This scene was also portrayed on Under the Banner of Heaven.

Me at Haun's Mill in 2015

Jeff told us that, a few days earlier, Ira Glaze was captured by the Mormon militia in the vicinity of a buried cannon, abandoned by the Missouri mob.  The Mormons took the poor boy, stripped him naked, tied him to the cannon, and marched the cannon with Glaze strapped to it for miles in the hot sun to their encampment at Adam-Ondi-Ahman.  There, Joseph Smith rallied his brothers-in-arms by personally discharging the cannon, with shouts of "Hosanna" before they released Ira Glaze, who returned, skulking and seething, back to his Missouri comrades.

The question I ask myself - if my Mormon forebearers had not humiliated and assaulted Ira Glaze by stripping him naked and strapping him to a cannon, would he have thought twice about raising a rifle to the head of a little boy?  Who caused that anger within him, that murderous rage?  We did.  And violence always begets violence.

In Mormon culture, we tend to see ourselves as the victims at the hands of the Missouri mobs.  But rarely do we try to understand how we provoked the attacks or where our own fault lies.  Jeff's tour helped me to see this.  We took land, made unfair business trades, voted in bloc.  They burned our homes, plundered our farms, and drove us from our lands.  But we Mormons also burned their homes, plundered their farms, and drove them from their lands.  They murdered us.  We murdered them.

Missouri changed us.  Years of persecution and perpetual hounding marked our culture permanently.  In The Kingdom Or Nothing, author Samuel Taylor recounts the history of his grandfather, John Taylor, who would eventually go on to become the third president of the LDS Church.  John Taylor had been a Methodist preacher in Toronto when he converted to the Mormon Church.  He had been with the Saints in Kirtland, Ohio and had known the peace, love, and glad tidings of the restored gospel.  He moved to Far West, Missouri in the midst of the Mormon War and found a marked difference in the Saints compared to in Ohio.  More militant.  Ready for violence.  In Ohio, leaders like Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had been affable and good-natured.  In Missouri, hardship, persecution, and loss had hardened them.  They walked around the encampment armed with rifles.  It was then that John Taylor realized that he wasn't just a minister.  He was a soldier in a real war.  This realization changed him for the rest of his life.  And it changed all of the Mormon population.  Our beloved prophet murdered.  Blood oaths.  The Oath of Vengeance.  Danites.  Destroying Angels.  Frontier justice.  Mountain Meadows. Blood atonement.  Murder.

We have a dark past...

And Under the Banner has brought some of that past under scrutiny.  It has been interesting to be online and see the visceral reactions of Mormons to both the book and the television program which illustrates violent episodes from our history, culminating to the transition of the Laffertys from faithful Latter-Day Saints to violent zealots who used their religion as an excuse to murder Brenda Wright Lafferty and her baby daughter, Erica.  It has been interesting to feel my own reaction, my own defensiveness.  This discomfort at looking at our past being elucidated by a TV show is proof to me that we have some owning-up to do, some true soul-searching.  For years, we have swept our past under the proverbial rug.  Perhaps it's time to confront it, discuss it, come to terms with it.  Only then can we truly move forward.

Don't get me wrong - I think that neither the book nor TV series are pristine.  Jon Krakauer's narrative is lurid, too sweeping.  Dustin Lance Black's dialogue is too hokey and feels stilted.  And yet they got so many things right.  The worthiness interview with the bishop.  Anyone who has been in the LDS Church knows how uncomfortable they are.  I can't think of anything more humiliating than being a gawky preteen in an office alone with a grown-ass man and being asked by the bishop whether or not you masturbate.  And the ensuing discussion between Jeb Pyre (Andrew Garfield) and his wife was beautifully acted out and rang so true to the Mormon experience.

And then the temple endowment.  The endowment...  I have always disliked when TV shows or movies portray the temple ceremony.  I didn't like it in Big Love, and I don't like it in Under the Banner of Heaven.  It's too sacred to me.  However, I understand how this portrayal drives the plot forward.  Although, I have to admit - it was beautifully executed.  They did a fantastic job stylistically.  They didn't quite get everything right about the particulars of the ceremony.  (Neither did Big Love.)  It has given me quite a bit of opportunity to talk about our temple ceremonies online.  Not many Latter-Day Saints are very well-versed in the symbolism and meaning in such an esoteric ritual, because they are not given proper instruction.  Conversely, Mormon fundamentalists - like me - were given instructions to help us understand the endowment, and thus probably know more about it than our LDS counterparts.

But the topic that has been discussed the most online following this episode is that of blood atonement, the idea taught by Brigham Young, and others, that some sins are so pernicious that they can only be remedied by the spilling of your blood.  There are rumors of the early days of Utah, blood atonements being carried out all throughout the desert.  Over the course of this week, I have seen some weird attempts at trying to justify the concept.  On the flip side, I have heard some ex-Mormons imply that, if you retain your belief and faith in this religion, you are condoning blood atonement.  I reject both points of view.

In a recent panel discussion last week for Sunstone Foundation, I stated quite adamantly that, as a Mormon fundamentalist, I totally reject the concept of blood atonement.  I don't care if Brigham Young taught it.  I don't believe in it.  At all.  First of all, because it negates the saving power of Christ's atonement.  Next, because it usurps God's authority to decide who lives and who dies.  I would never want the power to decide someone's fate, nor would I want anyone to have that power over me.  That is treading on dangerous ground - the very same ground tread upon by the Laffertys!  No, thank you!  If that makes me some sort of liberal or progressive Mormon, so be it!  Blood atonement - I'm not here for it!  Our religion ought to be a religion of peace.

To quote Jiddu Krisnamurti:

"When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent.  Do you see why it is violent?  Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind.  When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence.  So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind."

Or better yet, read the words of Joseph Smith:

"But meddle not with any man for his religion: all governments ought to permit every man to enjoy his religion unmolested.  No man is authorized to take away life in consequence of difference of religion, which all laws and governments ought to tolerate and protect, right or wrong.  Every man has a natural, and, in our country, a constitutional right to be a false prophet, as well as a true prophet.  If I show, verily, that I have the truth of God, and show that ninety-nine out of every hundred professing religious ministers are false teachers, having no authority, while they pretend to hold the keys of God's kingdom on earth, and was to kill them because they are false teachers, it would deluge the whole world with blood."

You can listen to more about Mormon history in Missouri on my recent podcast discussion with Lindsay Hansen Park on Year of Polygamy.

A Mormon Fundamentalist Review: Under the Banner of Heaven Ep. 1 & 2

 

In 2003, I belonged to a United Order - a type of hippie commune, except that there were no hippies, there were Mormon polygamists.  And I was one of the Mormon polygamists who lived there, having two wives at the time.  (I only have one at the moment.)  

Life was not idyllic in the "Order", the commune.  We didn't sing songs around campfires with flowers in our hair.  We lived in trailers on a windy, dusty stretch of Arizona desert - no neighbors, miles from any town, completely isolated.  We tried to coax vegetables out of inhospitable soil and worked meager jobs, turning over our paychecks at the end of the week to the Order to be re-distributed to those in need.  The Order rules forbade us from having a TV, but that was okay,  We didn't have any electricity to begin with and hauled our own water.  Our children would crowd around the TV at the coin laundry where we washed our clothes every week, huddling around the glimmer of the screen, transfixed and mesmerized.

So, why did we live in this spartan lifestyle?  We were trying to build the Kingdom of God.

Without a TV, I would unwind at nights with a book in my hand, crouching under the dim light of a candle until my eyes hurt.  I would read everything I could get my hands on, and not just religious texts, but history books, sci-fi and fantasy, thrillers, anything.  At our weekly trip to the public library, I would load up with as many books as I was allowed to check out.  By 2003, Jon Krakauer was already one of my favorite authors.  I had previously devoured Into the Wild and Into Thin Air and thoroughly enjoyed them.  So, when I saw that he was publishing Under the Banner of Heaven, an exploration of Mormon fundamentalism, specifically the gruesome murder of Brenda Lafferty in 1984, along with her infant daughter.  I knew that I had to read this book.

As expected, Krakauer's writing style sucked me right in, and I finished the book in a couple of days.  It was completely captivating.  But it left me with a sense of malaise.  I had heard of the Lafferty murders for most of my life - a heinous act committed against a woman and her child.  But I was completely detached from this.  It was just something I had heard mentioned in hushed circles, but always with the sense that this was them.  Not us.  I always felt far removed from this tragic event.  Krakauer brought it forefront.  Krakauer made it real for me.  His sensory depiction as he turned the words of the killer into a horrifying study of violence - it left me sick inside.  Along with his account of the murder, he wove in a narrative of Latter-Day Saint history, specifically points of violence from our past.  By the time I reached the conclusion, I was livid.

Over the years, I have had to qualify my opinion of Banner to others.  "I really like it, but I disagree with his conclusions."

Krakauer concluded that the Mormon faith has had the seeds of violence planted within it since its inception.  That Mormonism is inherently violent.

Looking back, I don't know why this upset me so much.  I mean, I wasn't violent.  Even though I lived off-grid on a Mormon compound, I was happy.  I loved my family and wanted them to be happy, too.  How could my religion inspire, as a character in the first episode expresses, "dangerous men"?  Mormon fundamentalists aren't dangerous!  Aren't they?

Skip forward almost twenty years to 2021, and I am no longer a polygamist, the United Order dissolved, and I have a TV.  (I still live on the same dry patch of desert, though.)   While visiting a polygamous community in Missouri, I got a phone call from my dear friend, Lindsay Hansen Park, director of Sunstone Foundation and the host of Year of Polygamy.  She informed me that she had been brought in by a production team as a consultant for a TV miniseries adaptation for Under the Banner of Heaven for FX and Hulu.  She told me that Andrew Garfield was attached to the project, and she was being brought on to use her wealth of knowledge of Mormon culture to help lend authenticity to the program.  The show creator, Dustin Lance Black, the Academy Award-winning writer of Milk and one of the writers of  Big Love, came from an LDS background but needed someone who understood the minutiae of the weird world of Mormon fundamentalism.  That's where Lindsay came in.

Where I came in, Lindsay fielded some questions to me about Mormon fundamentalism - priesthood ordinances, customs, and history.  It's a bizarre culture I'm in, and I've been a part of it for almost 35 years.  There were other fundamentalists that worked with Lindsay in the same fashion, but I was just thrilled to be a part of this project, even as far-removed from it as I was.  Plus, it gave me huge cred with some of my teenage kids to be working on something involving Andrew Garfield.

It is probably relevant to add that not everyone in the fundamentalist community was thrilled with my ephemeral connection to the project.  I caught some flak for it.  Probably for the same reasons I myself might have hesitated in the past to get involved - Banner comes across as "anti" literature (although that view is shortsighted, as I will soon express.)  The way I justified my involvement to other fundies - hatchet job or not, I'm going to do my damnedest to make sure they get it right.

I was delighted when Lindsay invited me to the premiere two days ago in Salt Lake City.  Getting to the premiere was an adventure in itself that perhaps deserves its own post.  Needless to say, I was able to travel to the premiere with my wife Martha and two of my kids, including my 18-year-old daughter who was hoping to catch a glimpse of Garfield.  (Little does he know that she has staked a claim on him, along with possibly dozens of people of all sexes in the theater.)  I will add that Garfield is intelligent, funny, and affable.  Anyone who casually quotes Rainer Maria Rilke, one of my favorite poets, is okay by me.

The screening started, and the first thing that choked me up was the blood - Brenda Lafferty's blood on the floor.  I had such a visceral reaction that I could almost smell it.  Just like Krakauer's book, it made it real.  Brenda Lafferty was a real person.  And she really died.  She died, because some men had some really fucked up interpretations of my religion.  Daisy Edgar-Jones's heart-wrenching performance made it all the more poignant for me.  Just like Garfield's  Utah detective brought warmth and humanity to the narrative.  I watched the first two episodes of the series, and I have no intention of spoiling the plot.  But I will say that they have scenes interspersed that depict scenes from early church history, just like Krakauer's book, including portrayals of Joseph Smith and Emma Smith (portrayed by the lovely Tyner Rushing).

I do have some minor criticisms about the show, but they are just small items - like I grew up in the early '80s in rural Utah, and no active LDS member dressed like that or wore their hair like that, at least that I knew.  And the dialogue feels a bit stilted sometimes.  I felt the same way about Big Love.  It's like, they are using our vernacular, our buzzwords, but not in any way that anyone I know would use it.  Perhaps it's meant to be expository for the uninitiated, but dude, no plyg I know talks that way.  Even my daughter, who has not chosen the faith, made the same observations.

Beyond those very miniscule criticisms, this series is impressive.  It's definitely top notch and needs to win some Emmys.  It is beautifully shot.  The acting is superb and believable.  The emotional intensity is high.  (Be warned: this is not a "feel good" show.)  It will have you at the edge of your seat.

So, why did I feel my face get hot when I described the series to my Mormon fundamentalist father-in-law this morning?

Because I know how plygs are going to take this.  And that's as a personal attack on our culture.  They will feel - as they have felt before, and with good reason - that all polygamists are being painted with the same broad brush.  And perhaps they are.  I don't know.  I personally heard Dustin Lance Black, the show's creator, state that this is the story of a family's "descent into fundamentalism and darkness".  As if the two are equivalent.  And they're not.  I know they're not.  I'm not sure if he meant it that way, but it felt that way.  I'm not going to lie - it really stung to hear that.  Most fundamentalists I know are nothing like the Laffertys.  But let's be honest - all of us in the plyg world know someone, or many someones, like them.  

So, the question to ask - what is it about our religion and culture that draws some of the smartest, most compassionate people I know, along with some of the most batshit-crazy zealots?  How can this incongruous mix of people exist side by side?  Do you know how many people I have known over my long career who have claimed to regularly speak with God?  Who believe they are the One Mighty and Strong?  Or some reincarnation of some biblical prophet?  I've lost count.  There have been so many.  Generally, I tend to try to stay away from them as much as possible.  I never let fundamentalists get close to me until I've vetted them and know them better.  There is a reason that I love being an Independent, without church or group.  So that I can put distance.

Case in point - I'll never forget the time many years ago that I invited a man I had never met to the house to visit.  He and I sat outside my house on chairs, and one of the first things he said to me was his sexual preference in young girls.  I couldn't get that guy away from my property quick enough, but I remember worrying, "This guy knows where I live."  I'm not so trusting now.

That is the question - what is it in my religion that attracts these types of extreme personalities?  That is the real question.  And the answer?  I don't really know.  As a believer, I have some spiritual explanations, but I don't think I will be casting these pearls before the proverbial swine.  (Not that you're swine.)  But these are the questions we need to ask, because the Laffertys are not an anomaly.  Eventually, there was a Brian David Mitchell.  And then a Chad Daybell.  It keeps happening over and over again.  We need to have a dialogue about it, so that we can understand and so that it doesn't happen again.  Perhaps this TV series will spark that discussion.

Perhaps that's what Jon Krakauer - and Dustin Lance Black - had in mind when they both set out to tell this story.

I feel fortunate and blessed to know that there is also beauty in Mormonism.  I prefer to focus on the light, not the darkness.  But not to the point of denying the existence of the darkness.  And recognizing it in ourselves. We tread on dangerous ground when we think there is nothing left to learn.  I think it was expressed best by Andrew Garfield, in a theater in downtown Salt Lake City two night ago, "A life of faith is not a life of certainty.  A life of faith is a life of doubt."

To Plyg Or Not To Plyg: Utah Challenges Anti-Polygamy Laws

Hello, everyone!  Yes, it had been a while since all y'all have heard from me.  I'm still around.  There is so much going on in the world of polygamy that I felt like I was dropping the proverbial ball if I didn't comment on it.

So here it goes...

Utah currently has a bill before its legislature that would essentially "decriminalize" polygamy.  I use quotation marks, because the bill doesn't literally decriminalize the practice - it reduces it from a felony to a misdemeanor.  It would be a punishable offense.  But hey - a victory is a victory.  The bill passed unanimously in the Senate.  Read about it here.  It still must pass through Utah's House of Representatives where its fate will be determined - will this be a victory for polygamists?  Or a smackdown?  It remains to be seen.

Some may remember back in January, 2013 when Kody Brown and wives of "Sister Wives" fame challenged the anti-polygamy laws in federal court, and a judge ruled that those laws were unconstitutional.  That was a great day.  I was up late that night, celebrating with other polygamists on social media late into the night, and there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth with the "antis".  That victory was short-lived.  The ruling was struck down, because there needs to be an active prosecution in respect to the law in order to challenge it.  In other words, there was no polygamy charge levied against Kody Brown.  Utah has not prosecuted polygamy in decades.

I have been asked by friends, "Why do you care if Utah has anti-polygamy laws?  They don't enforce them.  It doesn't affect you."  No, it doesn't affect me.  Yes, I live in Arizona.  But the reason I don't live in Utah is its laws.  The threat is always there.  Nobody wants to live under that intimidation.  "We're not going to arrest you... but we could if we wanted!"

So, how did this bill pass the Senate in very mainstream LDS Utah?  Unanimously??  They provided a rationale that I have used for almost two decades.  The abuses that stereotypically exist in plural marriage - sexual abuse, domestic violence, underage marriage, welfare fraud, etc. - are caused by the culture of secrecy that has sprouted up due to strict anti-polygamy laws.  Much in the same fashion that Prohibition created a bootleg culture, along with theft, murder, and other crimes, making polygamy illegal has pushed it into the shadows, allowing the evil designs of men like Warren Jeffs to flourish.  Because they were not accountable to anyone.  Because everyone was quiet.  You don't talk about your beliefs to the world.  You don't take your brother to the law.  And if you're a plural wife enduring abuse, you don't take your issues to the authorities, because you yourself may be arrested for living polygamy.  It's a mess.

These are the very things that I said to Mike Watkiss, formerly of Arizona Channel 3, in a letter back in 2008.  (I can no longer find the letter online.)  These are the things I spoke about in my TV interviews, and I ruined my credibility in the polygamous communities because of it.  Why?  Because you DON'T GO TO THE MEDIA!!  Why?  The culture of secrecy.  You're not supposed to speak out, rather remain hidden, and go unnoticed.  And if you speak, you're not just risking yourself, but everyone else.  One man in a polygamous community called me a "wicked, wicked man" for going to the media.

This culture of secrecy has to end.  Only when everything is transparent will the abuses end.  Only when things are out in the open will there be accountability when men try to take advantage of this system.  Luckily, this is the argument that went before Utah Senate.  And cooler heads prevailed.

They realized that for well over a hundred years, the polygamy "problem" did not go away.  You are not going to get rid of polygamy.  Ever.  Not upon threat of jail.  Not upon the threat of death.  Nothing short of ethnic cleansing will get rid of this lifestyle.  So another solution must be presented.  Hence, the new bill.

It made my heart proud to see the response of overwhelming support from the Mormon fundamentalist community.  They gathered on the steps of the capitol to show solidarity.  There has also been an overwhelming response from the naysayers and anti-polygamist hate groups.

First of all, I must say that I am a lot less vitriolic towards them than I was wont to be in days past.  I still don't like them.  But at least I understand them a little.  These women are mostly victims of this culture of secrecy that I have been speaking of.  They suffered real hurts and pain at the hands of men abusing the Principle.  Who am I to judge them?  However, who are they to judge us?

Granted, I have not been a polygamist for many, many years now.  Maybe that accounts for my softening.  But I still remember the nights when I would lay awake, worried that someone would come to take my kids away, that someone would lie and make up shit to obtain that objective.  Even with the presence of this bill, there has been quite a clamor from the antis.

There was a demonstration where the antis slapped stickers that read "Slave" on the chests of women, equating slavery and polygamy.  They had the ill fortune of placing one on Rep. Sandra Hollins, an African-American woman.  The thoughtlessness is astounding.  However, this has always been the method of the antis - lying, overdramatization, false rhetoric, ignoring decency, and, in this case, outright racism.

Fortunately, there have been advocates like historian, Cristina Rosetti (check out her Twitter) and Lindsay Hansen Park, who did my Year of Polygamy interview.  I need to clarify that neither of these great women are pro-polygamy.  Cristina isn't even Mormon.  They just recognize that, for things to change positively in the world of plural marriage, that the change must start within the walls of the capitol building.  Check out Linday's excellent article about the racist narratives used in this argument right here.  These women may not want my gratitude for their defense.  But they have it.

In closing, my message is:  Utah - you made this problem.  You need to fix it.  You're doing a great job so far.  Keep it up.  Don't let us down!

PS  Relax, Utah Mormons.  The Church is not going to bring back polygamy anytime soon.

Arizona Sunstone Symposium 2017

Me presenting at the Arizona Sunstone Symposium

On Saturday, March 11, my wife, Martha, and I got up quite early and made the drive down to Phoenix before the sun rose.  We made it to the Community of Christ building where the 2017 Arizona Sunstone Symposium would be held and where I had asked to present.  My speech would be entitled "From Punk Rock To Polygamy: The Story of a Mormon Fundamentalist".

I was nervous.  I wasn't sure what to expect.  Upon entering the building and registering, we  met Lindsay Hansen Park, the director, and the host of the podcast "Year of Polygamy".  She had interviewed me for the podcast via Skype back in January, but this was the first time we were meeting in person.

All through the day, there were concurrent sessions, so it was hard to pick which ones to go to.  Martha and I attended the first session given by Dr. Sujey Vega from ASU - a fascinating presentation on the history of Mormon latinos in Mesa, Arizona.  Next, we attended a session given by sex therapists, Natasha Helfer Parker and Kristin Bennion on sex addiction.  Mainly, that our view towards sex, pornography, and addiction cause damage - something that I happen to agree with.  Then we had an amazing lunch, provided by a Cuban restaurant called Republica Empanada - Cuban empanadas.  They were to die for.  While we ate, we were given a hilarious slide presentation by Jerilyn Pool called "Mormon Food Studies in Trump's America".  It was wickedly funny and left me in stitches.

Me with Lindsay Hansen Park

After lunch, Martha and I split up.  She attended a class on how to broach the subject of pornography with your children while I went to a panel of former Mormons called Infants on Thrones about Echo Chambers, or surrounding yourself with people who agree with you and how dangerous that is.

Next came time for me to do my presentation.  I did alright.  You be the judge.  I am posting the presentation below in three videos, including the Q&A session.  I really enjoyed it, and people seemed genuinely interested and polite.  There were a couple of people who told me that they drove all the way from El Paso just to see me speak.

Next, I attended a break-out session - a discussion on having difficult conversations with Mormons who disagree with you.  It was very enlightening.  Then Micah Nickolaisen of A Thoughtful Faith podcast led a fascinating discussion on psychedelics and Mormonism, speculating on how these might have influenced Joseph Smith.  As someone who has experimented with psychedelics, I found the entire notion interesting.  The keynote speaker was Thomas Murphy, a history professor from Washington.  He is a nice man, and we had an interesting private discussion about the Third Convention, Margarito Bautista, and Ozumba - topics that should interest any Mormon fundamentalist.  He gave a presentation on repatriating artifacts that Mormons have stolen and co-opted back to the native tribes.  Then the conference ended.

It was a very refreshing and educational experience for me.  First of all, it was invigorating to be accepted - and not maligned - for who I am by a group of Mormons.  Then, it was a highly liberal conference.  Generally, most fundamentalist Mormons are conservative, and I am not conservative.  The change of dialogue was refreshing to me.  Next, I have learned that I need to expand my scope of Mormons further.  In recent years, not only have I had discussions with mainstream Mormons and people of different fundamentalist sects, but I have learned to include people of other Restoration movements, like the Community of Christ.  Now, I realize that I must include former Mormons - people who have left the LDS faith for whatever reason.  There were gay ex-Mormons, the parents of gay ex-Mormons, people who have left the Church over personal or doctrinal issues.  And yet these people were here, at a conference, discussing Mormon doctrine and history.  They are still Latter-day Saints, in my book, even if only culturally.  We need to create a broader scope of who our brothers and sisters are.  We need to learn t bring discussions to the table, even when we are disagreement with people.  And yes, I heard many things I disagreed with.  But at the end of the day, there was not one person there that I would not embrace as a brother or a sister.  And I hope they felt the same,

When we left, Martha and I went out to get our sushi fix before driving home.

My presentation is found below in three videos:

Year of Polygamy

So, I was recently contacted by Lindsay Hansen Park, one of the directors at the Sunstone Foundation, a Mormon think tank.  Lindsay has been a series of well-known and well-received podcasts called "Year of Polygamy".  I was honored that she picked me to be a part of it.  I quipped that this was what every narcissist needed - a forum to talk about themselves!

This last Tuesday, I was snowed in at home, and I had to fire up my generator just to talk.  I made a Skype appointment to interview with Lindsay.  She was very kind, and it is very nice to have someone at her intellectual caliber give Mormon fundamentalists and polygamists such an objective voice.  It was a pleasant experience.

Anyway, the podcast aired yesterday, and I am very pleased with how it turned out.  In essence, I give highlights from my life.  I hope it is interesting.  You can listen to it here.

Lindsay has given me the possibility of presenting at this year's Arizona Sunstone Symposium with a segment aptly entitled "From Punk Rock to Polygamy".  I am looking forward to it!